Revenge

I was reading an old post on Liberty For All about a case where a woman named Clara Harris murdered her husband because he had an affair. The murderer has gotten a lot of public and media sympathy.

Even the prosecutor in the murder trial, Mia Magness, expressed her disgust, saying that Clara, instead of killing David by her own hand, should have '[done] like every other woman … get his house, car, kids - make him wish he were dead."

I made the comment "Murder is wrong, but so is “get his house, car, kids - make him wish he were dead.” This kind of vengeance is often encouraged in America. It can lead, ultimately, to the vengeance of murder. Let men or women think they are justified in destroying the life of another and it doesn’t take much to make them feel they have a “right” to get ultimate revenge. "

A later commenter, infojunkie, called me a "woman hater" for my comment. I can't see anything in my comment that singles out women. I believe I was pointing out that revenge is evil. Since I didn't make myself clear, I posted another comment (twice, accidentally) which I reproduce here to clarify my position.

infojunkie - Unless the contract stipulated that "revenge" is the proper course of action if the contract were broken, then taking everything and making the other person wish they were dead is wrong. It doesn't matter if the vengeful party is male or female. Gender has nothing to do with it and is merely used as a false flag. I am absolutely not a "woman hater", but I do hate "revenge". I have never seen a marriage contract that laid out the terms that would be followed in case of "cheating" and mentioned that "taking it all and destruction of the guilty party's life" was mandated. The assumed terms are that the property will be divided equally, and care of any children will be shared. Going further than that is "revenge" and it is wrong; libertarian or not. Once you step into the territory of revenge, where do you draw the line?

I am confronted everyday by the acceptance of revenge as a legitimate tool of the "hurt" or "cheated". This is a mafia mindset. Every slight is not justification for revenge. Revenge gets wars started and murders committed. Revenge fuels the capital punishment industry. I firmly believe that in the long run, revenge hurts the hateful revenge seeker as much as it hurts the target. Hungering for revenge certainly cheapens your life and corrodes your personality. You become a prisoner of your hate. Revenge has no place in a liberty-lover's life.

Poll Reminder

Just a reminder to vote for me in the Politics One poll. I am in the Libertarian Party poll down on the right side. Thanks.

"Rebelfire: Justice Day" Video

Here is a good music video. It is the song "Rebelfire: Justice Day" which goes along with the book "Rebelfire - Out of the Gray Zone" by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman. The book and song are aimed at teens, but I really enjoyed the book and I really like this video, too. The book chronicles a teen's life in a near-future police state, and his determination to live free and follow his dream in spite of it.

"Real Campaigns"

I have heard the observation in the past and then again today that I am not running a “real campaign”. I would like to explain myself. I am not running a conventional campaign, but that does not make it unreal. "Real campaigns" keep getting us "real politicians". I don't like them, and I doubt you do either. Real campaigns involve name-calling and mud-slinging and innuendos. Real campaigns rely on whispered promises and promised favors. Real campaigns annoy us with advertisements that make us change the channel in disgust at the disingenuous parasite smiling at us from the screen while he plots against us behind the scenes. I won't do it.

What I decided to do from the start was to get my name and views "out there" and see if there was enough support for me to inspire grassroots efforts to promote my candidacy. So far, this has not happened to the extent I would like, but unless I have someone give me a very good reason to change my strategy, I probably will keep on going down this path.

I am running for President. If you wish to support my candidacy it is up to you to promote me as a real candidate. This means you can make up bumper stickers or buy mine from CafePress. Make business cards with my name and website information on them to pass out to people who might be interested, or to leave in public places where they may be seen and picked up. Link to my website in your blog or on your website. Rent a billboard. Buy a radio or TV ad if you want to. You have a lot of information about me in this blog and on my website. Anything else you want to know, as long as it is relevant; just ask me. If it isn't relevant, you can still ask, just don't base an ad on it, please.

My supporters are the only ones who can make this a "real campaign". Has any other candidate ever given you this much responsibility? I have confidence in you. You can handle it.

Feeling a Bit Guilty

I find myself feeling guilty for not taking myself more seriously. Yes, I am running for president. That doesn't mean I will change who I am in order to win favor. Voters are fickle. If you have a well-polished campaign with nicely printed brochures, and you are attractive and dress well, they will support you, until someone who does those things better comes along. At no time do the candidate's actual views come under serious consideration. I don't have the finances to play the game that way. Actually, I have no finances at all. But that is another issue.

I have been invited to some interviews that I would have truly loved to have participated in, but couldn't afford to travel to. If someone wants to do an interview and meet me somewhere in this general vicinity, I am willing. I have also been invited to some nice political events. It would be interesting to speak face to face with the other candidates and find out if they are as loopy as I am. Who am I kidding, anyone who chooses to run for president is nuts. Some just wear it well or hide it better than others. Which is more sane: shifting your principles to meet the occasion, or sticking to them in the face of rabid opposition? Seriously, I am asking you.

If there becomes a demand for personal appearances by yours truly, I will find a way to make a few of them at least. Possibly I could telecommute since this is the 21st century (I still find myself saying "20th century" sometimes). So far, most of you seem content to read my words of wisdom (or "rantings", depending on your perspective). If a major change in the wind occurs, a positive change, I will make myself more visible. Until then, I remain your nearly-invisible candidate. Now if all of the politicians would follow my example, my job would be done.

Campaign Limerick

Most candidates have campaign videos, advertisements, or even songs. I am a bit different so I wrote a campaign limerick instead. Since this is the most noble form of poetry, I grace your day thusly:

There once was a fellow named Kent
Who wanted to be President
He did well in some polls;
Which was one of his goals
He'd hoped he would just make a dent.

He wanted to be President.
In his blog he would quite often vent.
Readers toasted his buns
when he wrote about guns.
This most libertarian Kent.

He preached "Responsibility"
Refused to ration "Liberty"
You will pay a price
for punishing vice.
It leads straight to tyranny.

Thus continues the saga of Kent
Who wants to be your President.
Just offer your vote;
His words you may quote.
This most libertarian Kent.

NRA Elections

David Codrea of the excellent War on Guns blog posted a questionnaire for candidates for the NRA Board of Directors. I realize I am running for President; not for the NRA Board of Directors, but I thought you might like to see where I would stand if I were. I am a disgruntled life member of the NRA. This is where I stand, and where I wish a candidate for the NRA Board of Directors would stand as well:

1. Do you believe that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and that the Bill of Rights acknowledges the birthrights of all Americans?

Absolutely. Rights exist independent of government choosing to acknowledge them, however a government that does not recognize and respect rights has lost any legitimacy it may have once had.

2. If so, should these rights be proactively protected from infringement by all levels of government, including city, county and state?

If by "proactively protected" you mean that every counterfeit "law" (any law which seeks to regulate something other than actual force or fraud) should be stricken from the books and that any law enforcement action that violates any rights possessed by anyone should be punished swiftly and harshly, then yes, I do believe they should be.

3. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider constitutional.

No such laws exist.

4. Please give some examples of gun laws you consider unconstitutional.

National Firearms Act of 1934; Gun Control Act of 1968; background check requirements; laws forbidding firearms to former felons who have completed their sentence; etc.

5. Does the right to bear arms include the right for any peaceable citizen to carry them concealed without a permit, as in Vermont?

Yes. Government has no authority to regulate firearms (or other weaponry) in any way.

6. Do you believe that Americans have a right to own, use and carry weapons of military pattern?

Yes.

7. Do you support or oppose Project Exile, and do you agree with current NRA management’s call to “enforce existing gun laws”?

Project Exile is an abomination and should be abandoned as such. I have written to the NRA on several occasions demanding an end to their call to "enforce existing gun laws".

8. Do you support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms? Why?

Oppose. Government has no authority to regulate firearms in any way.

9. What specific gun laws will you work to get repealed?

If I could only choose one, I would work to get the National Firearms Act of 1934 thrown out. Next would be the Gun Control Act of 1968. I would work my way down from there.

10. If elected to the NRA Board, will you back your words of support for firearms rights up with consistent actions? How?

Yes I would, by speaking out against victim disarmament and acknowledging the help of other (more consistent) gun rights organizations.

11. Do you agree with the way NRA assigns political ratings? If not, what would you change and why? Who would you have given a different rating to, what would it been and why?

No. I would have given Ron Paul an "A+" rating and G.W. Bush an "F" rating to reflect their support or lack thereof for gun owners.

12. Do you disagree with any policies being promulgated by NRA management? What is you biggest area of dissent? Have you offered superior alternatives and worked with others to implement them?

I disagree with their support for anti-gun programs such as Project Exile and Project Safe Neighborhoods. I have called for the end of these programs. The only "superior alternative" that is necessary is the Second Amendment, which means: "Because a Very Effective, Armed, Population is Essential in order for America to stay Free and safe, the Absolute Right of Everyone to Own and to Carry any type of Weapon they choose, in any way they wish, anywhere they see fit, cannot be regulated, licensed, or even questioned in the smallest way!"

13. Have you ever publicly spoken out against an NRA position because you thought it was wrong? When, where, and what were the results?

Just on this blog and in conversation with other gun owners. I have been doing this since I became politically active a few years ago. Most gun owners don't see that the NRA is wrong, unfortunately, so results were not apparent.

14. What reforms do you think are needed at NRA and why?

NRA needs to publicly apologize to America for siding with the victim disarmament crowd, and needs to firmly state its commitment to work towards overturning every gun law in America.

15. If elected, how will you inform members of your performance and voting record? Will you let us know when you dissent and why?

I would set up a blog and/or a website to catalog up-to-date information about actions of the NRA and my stance on those actions and my voting record.


16. Do you agree with Executive VP Wayne LaPierre, who stated: "[W]e believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel"? If not, what do you plan to do about it?

I absolutely do not agree. See my opinion on "gun-free schools" here: School Shootings.

Everything is being redefined as "terrorism"

A consequence of the government's fear and paranoia is that, as they clamp down tighter and tighter, they call more and more things a crime or even "terrorism". Now electronic advertising toys become potential bombs and dissent becomes "domestic terror". An educated person can make a bomb, poison, or a gun from things lying around most any household in the country. The only missing ingredient is knowledge. Remember the communist dictatorships where knowledge became a fatal condition? Welcome to the New USA. Books dealing with "dangerous" subjects are already being banned. Knowledge and intelligence is suspicious to the "ruling elite", unless you are working against America within the structure of the US government.

Blogs where governmental thugs are exposed face visits from Secret Service agents. All of your emails, phone calls, web surfing, library books, bank transactions, and credit card purchases are already being scrutinized by paranoid agents of a criminal tyranny. Anything "anti-government" that is found will elicit more snooping. They are looking for an excuse to arrest you. It is easier to track and control you once you are "in the system", either in jail or on probation. This is their desire: get as many of the disgruntled individuals into the criminal "justice" system as possible. Make an example of the ones who dare to defy them openly. They are succeeding, just look at the news.

The roles have been reversed: the terrorists now control the US. They call themselves Republicans, Democrats, FBI agents, BATFE, IRS, the President, Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and hundreds of other euphemisms to hide behind the truth. They call the real Americans "domestic terrorists". They pass counterfeit "laws" to protect themselves. They steal money from Americans to use against us. Americans need to start pointing out these traitors and holding them accountable. What will it take to make you angry enough to stand up?

What is Real Liberty?

Real Liberty. It means different things to different people. For some it means that they can use whatever substances they wish, chemical or electronic, in order to numb the pain of a dreary life. For others it means having a fine, expensive machine gun to admire and shoot. Still others only want to be able to "pimp their ride" until it looks like something out of a fevered dream. All of these things are important to some people. You may not choose to do the same things. It doesn't matter.

The only real right is the right to live completely unmolested. It is the ultimate right of association. If you do not wish to have any interaction with someone, then no one has the right to force you to. This is especially true when it comes to busy-bodies in government clothing.
What you do is not anyone's business as long as you are not hurting anyone else. Offending others is not the same as hurting them. Government stepped over the line millenia ago by using force to impose counterfeit "laws" on local populations. Government-enforced theft, called "taxation", was used to finance other abuses against the productive people that the governmental parasites fed on. Disarmament "laws" were passed, usually in the name of "safety" in order to keep the people weaker than the ruling "class" who faced no such restrictions.

I think government probably began as humans adopted a more settled, agricultural, lifestyle. Roving bands of marauding thieves began offering "protection" from other bands of marauding thieves ( which may or may not have actually existed) in exchange for goods and services. Eventually, the thieves stopped roving and put down roots in the area that they were victimizing; still demanding their cut of the riches. Unfortunately, the local population forgot what these thieves really were and accepted them as a "ruling class". It has been downhill since then.

It is my goal to remind people just who governments are composed of. That way we as human beings can get back on track to building civilization after a long detour caused by the thieving parasites. It is amazing the progress we managed to make despite their interference. Imagine where we would be, where we will be, once we give them their walking papers.

Trusting the Wolves

People have become accustomed to thinking that without a paternalistic government to keep the wolves at bay, they will be devoured. The problem is that government IS the wolf pack. It only protects you for the moment so it can tear you apart later. The pack has only its best interests in mind.

The pack puts out the bright, warm fires and then points out into the darkness and says "See that shadow over there? It is a wolf waiting to eat you as soon as we turn our backs!" But while we peer into the shadows, agreeing that we see dangers in the formless void, behind our backs the pack rips another of us limb from limb. If anyone notices, they are told that it was a diseased individual who had to be destroyed to keep the flock healthy. The truth is that it was quite often an individual who realized that the pack was preying on the flock, or that the shadows contained lesser dangers than were dwelling amongst the flock. If a true rescuer arises from the midst of the flock, the wolves shriek in hysterics, calling him a wolf and attack in great numbers while the flock looks on approvingly, never knowing that this could have been the end of the slavery that they endure. Indeed, they refuse to see that they are slaves.

Announcing "KentForLiberty.com"

I have launched my new campaign website today: KentForLiberty.com

I hope it gets my message across better than my old Geocities page. Check it out.

A Gun Control Compromise

I have been accused of being an extremist in defense of the right to own and to carry, anywhere you see fit, any type of weapon whatsoever, in any way you wish, without asking permission from anyone. 

 I suppose it is time to reconsider and announce I am ready to accept "reasonable gun laws". 

So.... which 50% of the victim disarmament laws are we going to repeal this year? 

Since my long-term goal is to remove all legal restrictions from guns, I am willing to use the same logic that the merchants of victimhood use when telling me that I must compromise. I will not demand the immediate repeal of all federal, state, and local laws against gun owners, but will compromise and only seek the removal of half of them. This year. 

Compromise means meeting halfway; not banning this type of gun today, then that type of gun tomorrow, followed by registration of handguns next week. 

 No, we gun owners compromised when the 1934 National Firearms Treason was committed. 

 Then again in 1968 and regularly since then. This "compromise" is only moving in one direction, and that isn't compromise at all. 

 A true compromise would have said you want the 1934 NFA and once you got that, there would be no more victim disarmament laws proposed ever again. Not this sneaky, incremental banning of self defense. It is your turn to accept compromise. 

 I am truly willing to meet you half way. 

 I would even accept the repeal of only one victim disarmament law as long as I get to choose which one. 

 If you choose, then I stand by my demand for abolishing 50% of them. 

 Well Sarah Brady; Chucky-Doll Schumer; Mike Bloomberg; which gun owner vilification laws will you help me get rid of? You couldn't possibly oppose this plan, could you? All we are asking for is "reasonable restrictions". Only an extremist would refuse to compromise. Right?

When They Come to Arrest You For Blogging....

The time is coming when the government will not be able to overlook dissent any longer. When they come to arrest you for blogging, will you shoot back?

In the very near future, I expect that it will be illegal to point out government abuses, murder-by-cop, and counterfeit "laws". The internet is an anarchical force in the eyes of government, and steps will be taken to rein it in. When this begins to happen, what will you do? Will you say "if they weren't doing anything wrong, they wouldn't have gotten in trouble"? Will you call them "cyber-terrorists" along with the choir called the mass media? People already get in trouble for satirically "threatening" the treasonous "leader" of the US online. Government has become nothing more than a rabid beast, hell-bent on attacking anyone who crosses its path. Those who point out this fact will be targeted. Those who continue to worship the monster will be the last ones eaten. Those who are assimilated after being infected with "government" will spread the disease.

The recent "Lite-Brite Terror" tragicomedy comes to mind. Here is an example of an advertising campaign that in no way threatened anyone, and yet became a terror case just because some people, private and governmental, were too incredibly stupid to recognize a toy! Whoever sounded the "alarm" over this should be humiliated into seclusion for exposing themselves as a mindless drone. Unfortunately, this type of knee-jerk whistle-blowing has become epidemic in the former Land-of-the-Free.

Defining Down Freedom

I was recently reading something about "freedom" written by someone in another country. He stated that "only in America are guns equated with freedom". I don't know if it is true or not, but it makes me wonder. This person thinks he is mostly "free". It seems that most Americans are also under the impression that they are "free". By most any measure, we are not. Does this make us feel inferior? Is it so disconcerting to admit that the US government has stomped out freedom in all but its most "harmless" incarnations that we delude ourselves? Do we redefine "freedom" in such a way that we can still claim to be free? Perhaps we lower the bar enough so that our version of "freedom" is still achievable without going to war against liberty's enemies. Does the person whose definition of freedom started this train of thought feel that guns are not connected to freedom because guns have been outlawed completely in his country, and are therefore a moot point? Do others in his country feel the same? They can't have guns to enforce freedom, so they "dumb-down" freedom to a point where it appears to be within reach of their crippled hands? What is your standard of freedom? Is it a weakened version that is government-approved or is it the real liberty to live your life as you see fit. Where as long as you do not harm or defraud anyone else, the government will stay completely out of every single aspect of your life to the point that, for all you know, government may not exist?

The National Agenda

As I was walking past the television I heard some TV face on a political show saying that "The battle is over who will control the National Agenda". I am assuming he was only considering the various minions of the Tyrannocrat Party. To me the real question is "Should there BE a national agenda to control?"

Of course, my position is that there should not be. A "national agenda" implies that there is "one answer to fit all" out there. It suggests that attacking other countries before they have a chance to attack "us" is a legitimate course of action. This is the kind of thinking that leads to "for the children" disasters, and welfare rolls expanding, and laws that cripple us all for the benefit of parasites and predators.

You as an individual can and probably should, have an agenda. It gives focus to your life. America, as a country, once had an agenda. It was called the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The US government rebelled against it and has been floundering looking for a legitimate purpose ever since.

Who's the "Criminal"?

I was reading a website where Steve Kubby was referred to as a "felon" and it got me thinking. He is considered a bad guy by the government, and his only "crime" was in violating the counterfeit "laws" against self-medicating with chemicals the government doesn't like. Yet when police officers kick in the door of an old woman while enforcing these same counterfeit "laws", and shoot her to death, they get the benefit of the doubt. Even to the point of the government trying to tarnish the grandmother's name. It becomes news when it seems they may, possibly, be held accountable for their murderous rampage.

If the concept of a "felony" is legitimate, it is only the serious crimes that fit the definition. Crimes like murder, rape, kidnapping, major thefts (IRS), and serious assaults. How long a time the corrupt agents of the government choose to hold a person prisoner should not enter into the definition. Using chemicals on your own body does not measure up. Neither does owning a gun. Nor refusing to pay taxes. If no harm is done to another person, no crime was committed. Anyone who considers himself a libertarian in any sense should recognize the distinction and not fall into using the state's terminology against anyone who has committed no crime. Cops who murder old women fit the bill very well; Steve Kubby does not. So I ask: Who is the criminal?

Laugh at Me

It is a sad fact of life today that people seem to have lost the ability to laugh at themselves. Perhaps a sense of humor is getting as rare as "common sense". Almost every joke has to come with a disclaimer that "no offense is intended". Television commercials, when creative, can be certain to offend someone, somewhere, too. Humans are absurd. We might as well admit and enjoy it. Throwing a tantrum about a joke that we find offensive drives the point home even harder.

Look at me for example. I think I can make a difference. Is that funny, or what? How can I take myself seriously? I get my panties in a wad when I misspell a word and can't edit it. (As I did here. Look at the last word. I hate that!!) I refuse to dress conventionally or to cut my hair to "fit in". I wear 18th century style glasses. I force myself to deal with handicaps that most people think are unnecessary because I refuse to tolerate certain government intrusions or ridiculous demands from employers. I have hobbies that most people don't "get". I am not an expert on anything, yet I foolishly believe I can understand most things at their core. I sing karaoke.

These things may or may not have any bearing on whether my ideas have any merit. That isn't for me to decide. After all: crazy people don't know they are crazy.

Out-of-Proportion Punishments

Out-of-proportion responses by government cause panic and bad decisions by people. Just like someone who is involved in a hit-and-run accident who panics and leaves the scene of the accident. How much of this is caused by a fear of the draconian punishment meted out by government? Probably most of it. Otherwise, there is no reason to panic. Ask someone who has done this and see why they fled. I doubt they feared that the pedestrian's family would kill them.

I can usually count on a rational response from individuals. Even when I unintentionally have harmed someone. Give that individual the badge, though, and you create someone who no longer treats the "non-badged" among us as humans, but as "perps". Simply putting a bad(ge) guy into the mix escalates the tension.

Take the case of the hit-and-run. If it happens, you can count on the fact it was not intentional. The person who is at fault should take responsibility for causing harm. Even if it is the pedestrian who is to blame. However, if the driver has no license, or no insurance, has taken an allergy pill, or is even just behind on child support, the consequences of having to talk to a cop can destroy his life. His car may be stolen; he may be jailed. Someone who may desperately want to stay and help is prevented from doing so out of fear of inappropriate punishment.

The worse the law pollution becomes, the less respect I have for any laws. I suspect I am not alone.

"Driving is a Privilege"?

Privilege. This means it can legitimately be denied to you if you don't agree to do it the state's way. Nonsense. What would have happened if the British had tried to force the colonists to pay for "license brands" to be renewed yearly on their horses' rumps? What if they had been required to get "riding licenses" in order to ride a horse to town? More British enforcers would have been hanging from lamp posts and much sooner, that is what. What has happened to us? Why do we tolerate such obvious meddling? Driving is simply a modern extension of walking or horse riding. Nothing more; nothing less. Any claim about "higher technology" is meaningless. It makes as much sense as saying there is a right to "freedom of the press" as long as no technology invented after 1789 is used. Quills or 18th century printing presses are OK, but ball-point pens and computers are not, without a government permit. The technology increases, not diminishes, the safety. Should riding bareback be unregulated, yet if you use a saddle, you need a government permission slip? Is horseback riding so safe that no one ever dies? Hardly. Were the roads not "public" back then, so government couldn't lay claim to everything that touched them?

There is a right to travel (not a "right to trespass"), and it is not dependent on the method or technology used. Any government regulation, licensing, restriction, or obstruction (such as "check points") of this right is to be decried as the thrashings of a tyranny running out of time. Stop the highway bandits-with-badges.

... For Your Own Good....

How many things does government impose on us "for our own good"? Well, there are all the gun "laws" and the drug "laws". Then there are the "health laws" regulating certain foods and behaviors. Seatbelt laws and speed limits and laws against porn. Mandated vaccinations and building codes. Even tax laws are involved since this is how all this enforcing is financed. "You can't cut the budget for cops because the resulting chaos would kill us all!!" Every one of these laws has a reasonable sounding, if completely erroneous, "safety" component to it.

With all these laws making sure we are safe, why do we not live forever? Because they don't work, can't work and were never intended to work. At least, not in the way they were "sold" to us. These laws are about controlling the peasants. They do make certain people safer: government enforcers and bureaucrats. The rest of us do not matter to those who believe they are superior. We have fallen for their lies for centuries. If the average person does not have the capacity to manage his own life, what makes you think that once elected to a political office, that same person can manage the lives of all those he seeks to control?

My job as president would be to hand your life back to you. You are the only person who truly has your "own good" firmly in mind. I trust you with your own life; would you trust me as president?

Politics One Polls

Politics One as two polls where you can vote for me. The Situation Poll (the second poll down on the right side) and the Libertarian Party poll (further down). Thanks for all the votes!

"In Search of the Second Amendment"

The new documentary, "In Search of the Second Amendment", is a scholarly examination by David Hardy into the historical background of the right to keep and bear arms. I have not had a chance to see it, but will try to get a copy soon. If you have an interest in this subject, I would recommend that you watch this. You can watch the YouTube preview at the bottom of the page I linked to. The collectivists out there will not like this film, and will make the same old tired excuses that they always do. They are still wrong.

Not to Be Trusted?

Does anyone really feel that they, personally, need to be tracked and controlled by government? Or do they feel that only other people need to be watched, and that in order to accomplish this, they are willing to put up with it themselves? In either case, to be so suspicious of one's fellow humans is pathetic. To hand them over to the state to satisfy one's paranoia is even worse; it is evil. How can individuals be worse than a group of people who work openly to enslave you? As a group, government is insulated from taking the blame and receiving real consequences from destructive actions. There is safety (for the individuals in government) in numbers. So who should really not be trusted? Why not require tracking collars on politicians and other government employees at all times? Why not make them all submit to humiliating random drug tests and constant surveillance? After all, they are the ones who can do the most damage to America. As tempting as it is, it would still be wrong. As libertarians we have the moral high-ground. This means honoring even the rights of those who do not deserve the consideration. Like governmental parasites.

REAL ID? Any ID? Why?

There is starting to be a lot of mainstream opposition to REAL ID. This is the universal tracking permit that the government wants to force you to have in order to still qualify as an American. Some states are rejecting it, mainly due to financial reasons instead of the draconian socialist overtones inherent in it. Still, any opposition is good, for whatever reason. Bush wants to force you to have it. If you balk, you are a terrorist in his mind. It will replace and become your "driver's license" soon. The idea of being forced to carry any sort of identification should be recognized as completely against any sort of freedom that America ever stood for. It is something directly from the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. People fell for it when driver's licenses were first "required" and they continue to fall for it each step of the way towards total state ownership. I can't tell you to refuse to submit to driver's licenses anymore, but I strongly suggest that once REAL ID gets implemented, you would be wise to consider refusing it. Why do you need a card from any government to "be legal"? The only reason for the card is to be tracked and controlled.

Illegal acts by government, such as the USA PATRIOT Act and REAL ID do more to give in to terrorist demands than any ransom ever paid or any concession ever given to freelance terrorists. Make no mistake; only the US government "hates us (Americans) for our freedoms". So it continues doing to Americans the exact thing that government mouthpieces claimed the 9/11 terrorists wanted; government destroyed out freedom. The US government is the largest terrorist organization the world has ever seen. America does not negotiate with terrorists. America should not give into demands of the US government tyrants.

The "Cult of Government"

If I were to start my own cult, I would find a basic human drive (the respect for a powerful leader-figure; fear of the unknown) to use to my advantage. I would then pervert basic human psychology (like our innate cooperativeness; the need to "belong") in order to collect followers, and I would emphasize the necessity of accepting the "truth" as I preach it, and would forbid real questions. Arguing over "how many angels could sit on the head of a pin" would be OK; questioning whether the angels actually existed would not.

In other words, I would set up a system just like a government. If you can "draft God" into your cult of government as effectively as many presidents, kings, and dictators have done, you have an even greater advantage. Allow the people to get caught up in whether Demopublicans or Republicrats are a better choice to lead America, but squelch any questioning of whether America needs to be led by anyone. Set up a dichotomy of "you are either with us or with our enemies" instead of letting anyone point out that government policies do more damage to freedom and liberty in America that if every freelance terrorist on earth suddenly invaded our shores. In the event of such an invasion, the population would see a clear threat and no government pronouncements would be able to keep us from doing everything in our power to protect our homes, gun "laws" or no. But if government dismantles America a piece at a time, saying it is for our own good, and says the only other option is to allow our "way of life to be destroyed", then people follow like cattle while the very parasites claiming to protect us, destroy us.

"They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer

Here is an exerpt from They Thought They Were Free - The Germans, 1933-45 by Milton Mayer.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by
little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in
secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government
had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous
that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released
because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler,
their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who
would otherwise have worried about it."

A Trap to Avoid

I have read a few items recently on other blogs about people who have done horrible (in my opinion) things in support of the US superstate. We need to learn the art of recognizing these misdeeds and publicizing them without necessarily calling the authoritarians who do this by name. At least unless you can do it anonymously. It is an unfortunate fact of modern life that those who perpetrate crimes against humanity don't like to be called on it when they are exposed, and if motivated enough, they can make life miserable for those who expose them. This doesn't mean they hold the moral upper-hand, just that they have been empowered by their unholy alliances to do damage to those they fear. Attack the deed; not the person.

Drug Tests - Just Say "No! You Pervert!"

Why is it so important for employers to become perverted "urine collectors"? For most jobs, it probably wouldn't even matter if someone came to work slightly "impaired. For the rest, unless someone is obviously not "right", it doesn't matter if they are impaired because of chemicals, depression, illness, or lack of sleep. All those things impact performance. I don't want a surgeon cutting on my brain with any of these issues hanging over his head. Why are "drugs" singled out?

Your personal time is just that: personal. What you do on Friday night is not your employer's business on Monday (or a couple weeks later). Liability wouldn't be an issue if we could get back to holding people responsible for their actions and any harm they cause. But then, Congress would all be facing the death penalty, wouldn't they?

Which drugs are OK to use? Ibuprofen? Benedryl? Alcohol? Caffeine? Chocolate? Broccoli? Every single substance you ingest or inhale affects your body chemistry in some way. Some have more of an effect than others, but if you are able to do our job without putting anyone, other than yourself, in increased danger, then you should be left alone, and any bodily fluids you contain should be yours to do with as you see fit. If you apply for a job that demands a urine sample, give them one right then and there. Let them get a sponge if they want to put it in a cup. It is time to stand up like humans with dignity and say a loud "No!" to this sick behavior on the part of government and its worshippers.

Now, I recognize that employers have a right to require just about anything they want. On the other hand, no companies had even thought of this intrusion until it became a government fad. You also have a right to refuse a job if they make ridiculous demands. Without the blessing of government, fewer companies would try to get away with this sanctioned molestation. In a future, free, America there will be enough companies and opportunities competing for your skills that you will be able to pick and choose.

"The Light's On, but Nobody's Home" - Ed Lewis

Liberty For All article about "they".

Would I Be "Allowed" to Take Office?

Would the powers-that-be allow someone like me to become president? Would they make certain I was assassinated before I could begin to dismantle the police state that they are working so feverishly to implement? I do sometimes fear the possibility. I don't fear it enough to make me stop the campaign, though.

No matter who wins the presidency, no matter how loudly that candidate has decried the abuses of the government in the past, nothing ever changes once that person takes office. Am I the only person who has noticed this? How does the government make certain that nothing changes? Does it make sure that only a dedicated police-stater gets elected, or does it "convince" the new president to go along?

Whatever normally happens, I would not allow that to happen with my presidency. I pledge to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights. My VP would have the responsibility for making certain of that, up to the point of shooting me if that is what it took. I would hope he would use persuasion, press conferences, and pressure before resorting to this last option. If I were ever guilty of going back on my campaign promises, and would not listen to reason, and some member of the population took it upon him- or herself to "fix" the situation through assassination, my successor would be under strict instructions to grant an immediate pardon to "the voter". This is the only way to keep a politician, even the most well-meaning one, honest.